H.Clinton again shows true colors regarding firearms..

Clinton signs on for more anti-gun bills..>
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/61903.htm

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has quietly stepped up her fight for tighter gun control by signing on to a new push to make public a national database of weapons used in crimes and illegal sales.

Her résumé on gun control, a pet issue among the Democratic Party's liberal base, includes calls for a ban on assault weapons and so-called "cop killer" armor-piercing ammo - yet she hasn't personally taken a lead role in any gun legislation in this Congress.
Please...:rolleyes:

George W. Bush supports the Assault Weapons Ban also. I suspect he and Hillary are working together on this.

ArmedBear

April 3, 2006, 06:01 PM

Well this is interesting, if you think about it.

If you make a database of weapons used in crimes public, it will show:

1. "Assault weapons" are seldom used in crimes.
2. Guns are not used in the majority of crimes, even violent crimes.
3. People kill each other, daily, with a lot of things, including their bare hands.

How does this bolster the gun grabbers' cause?

Or do I misunderstand the nature of the database?

BTW Hillary has "called for" a lot of things, sometimes contradictory things and within days of each other. What I find amazing is the core group of people who love Hillary for no discernable reason. What about her is trustworthy or remotely likeable, no matter what your ideology?

longeyes

April 3, 2006, 06:21 PM

George W. Bush supports the Assault Weapons Ban also. I suspect he and Hillary are working together on this.

All in the family.

Ira Aten

April 3, 2006, 06:38 PM

Quote from Armed Bear
"What about her is trustworthy or remotely likeable, no matter what your ideology?

From a human standpoint, nothing. But for the Leftist Globalist Villagers, she is a perfect representative. She is a tool for the upcoming United Nations Small ArmsTreaty, and they love her condescending attitude toward the rapidly disappearing American culture.

Further, nobody will push socialism for them better than Hillary once she gets a national spotlight to make the "right of medical treatment and long term care" available to everyone, regardless national origin. After all, every Iranian, Mexican, or Palastinian citizen needs good health care, and they just can't get it at home.

And if someone is of the belief that children should be expelled from a school for carrying a bible into a classroom because it "offended" a Muslim, she is their dream candidate.

So to those who want the worst thing possible for the evil, mean spirited country of the United States, she represents the culture of caring.

Me, I don't much care for her myself.

geekWithA.45

April 3, 2006, 06:46 PM

George W. Bush supports the Assault Weapons Ban also. I suspect he and Hillary are working together on this.

That is a preposterous statement.

Langenator

April 3, 2006, 06:54 PM

make public a national database of weapons used in crimes and illegal sales.

How, exactly, would this accomplish anything at all? By the way the statement is worded, "make public a national database," it would seem to imply that such a database exists, but is not publicly available. It would seem to me that, assuming said database does exists, the only way for a specific gun to get into the database would be for it to have been recovered by the cops. If the cops already have the gun, why do they need the database?

Similarly, in order to have a database of illegal sales, LE types would have to be aware that said sale had taken place. If they already know about it, either the case has already been prosecuted and the perp found guilty or not guilty. What exactly would this database accomplish?

Manedwolf

April 3, 2006, 07:13 PM

What's really interesting is that Senator Russ Feingold was less supportive of the assault weapons ban than George is.

If there's a nomination, I really hope it's someone like that who IS willing to look twice and change past decisions, not Hillary. Hillary would be hell. Feingold, as shown below, apparently is willing to THINK and reconsider based on actual facts. Amazing.

Here's from an article about Feingold voting against renewing the ban:

--------------------------------------
Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, who is up for re-election, was one of only six Democrats to vote against the provision renewing the ban on assault weapons, reversing a position he took on it a decade ago.

.......

Feingold changes his mind

Feingold said his mind had changed on the assault weapon ban since he voted for it in 1994. In an interview in May, he indicated he would be giving the measure a fresh look.

Tuesday, he said: "I have come to believe that it is a largely arbitrary and symbolic measure. Citizens see it as a first step towards confiscating their firearms."

--------

I'm stunned. That's more than Bush did. See next post for what Bush said.

Manedwolf

April 3, 2006, 07:16 PM

Quote:
George W. Bush supports the Assault Weapons Ban also. I suspect he and Hillary are working together on this.

"You said that if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you'd sign the legislation, but you did nothing to encourage the Congress to extend it. Why not? "

BUSH: "Actually, I made my intentions -- made my views clear. I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban, and was told the fact that the bill was never going to move, because Republicans and Democrats were against the assault weapon ban, people of both parties."
The third presidential debate on October 13, 2004 in Tempe, AZ

alan

April 3, 2006, 07:16 PM

Did you mean to say that there were peolpe around who were not aware of Mrs. Clinton's attitudes/position regarding firearms?

Silver Bullet

April 3, 2006, 07:27 PM

Look at the voting records.

Car Knocker

April 3, 2006, 08:57 PM

a new push to make public a national database of weapons used in crimes and illegal sales.

This is a blatant misstatement of the facts. In actuality, the database referred to is a listing of ALL the ATF firearms traces performed, whether used in a crime, found on the side of the road, or stolen and recovered. This broad spectrum may significantly alter what types of firearms are traced, compared to just firearms used in crimes, and provided more statistics to be perverted by those who would prohibit civilian ownership of firearms.

boofus

April 3, 2006, 09:00 PM

Maybe hil should read her estranged husband's book. Even he admits that gun control cost his party control of the house, senate and the oval office. When Justice Ginsburg retires it will have cost them the SCOTUS too.

If she runs on the gun control platform she has no chance unless the Repubs in power royally screw up in illegal immigration reform in the next few weeks. (are you listening Bush? 80% of Americans do not want your plan)

Kim

April 3, 2006, 09:25 PM

HC she makes me ill. But this database is the one Bloomberg and Daley etc. and the trial lawyers want to try and prove their new theory of gun manufactures ,dealers etc purposely flooding the great cities of this country with firearms. The BATFE is aganist letting the info out. So Ms. HC is even worse than the BATFE. Like I said she makes me ill.:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: Chrissy was just discussing this on Hardball the Demo pundit said this will only help her win. The Dems will never give up their push for gun control no matter what they say. They are lying.

Kodiaz

April 3, 2006, 09:28 PM

Well if you want to Reunite the conservatives this is a good start.

AirForceShooter

April 3, 2006, 09:33 PM

What use would the Data Base even be?

AFS

boofus

April 3, 2006, 09:35 PM

So the ATF will know which houses to set on fire.

Gunfire

April 3, 2006, 09:43 PM

estranged husband? what did I miss? Is something going on? Is she jumping off the coattails now that she has a senate seat?

And as for Russ Fiengold, the more I read about him the more respect I have. For a man to stand alone is a man of strong convictions, right or wrong. A man that can re-examine his stand after viewing the facts and admiting he was wrong is a man of character. A Senator that will read the Constitution and BOR's on the floor to the other senators and beg them to follow it is a true Patriot.

Malone LaVeigh

April 3, 2006, 10:30 PM

I can't imagine what goes through the minds of people who think Hillary represents the left. She is a corporatist NWO Democrat like her husband, who tries to position herself as a centrist. Since big business has bought and paid for the spectrum of debate in this country, she might very well represent the center, in a perverted sense.

You were dead right with your 2004 predictions. I have a bad feeling you will be right again.

Standing Wolf

April 4, 2006, 12:08 AM

You were dead right with your 2004 predictions. I have a bad feeling you will be right again.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

AndyC

April 4, 2006, 12:15 AM

What about her is trustworthy or remotely likeable, no matter what your ideology?
She's sexy? :D

aufevermike

April 4, 2006, 12:31 AM

[/QUOTE]database of weapons used in crimes and illegal sales[QUOTE]

Hummm. I hope they don't start putting serial numbers on knives and such.........

CAnnoneer

April 4, 2006, 12:40 AM

She will probably run, but cannot win. Many dems understand that very well and will torpedo her just as they did Howard Dean. "Electability". Ironically, they selected a first-class boring dunce instead. :rolleyes:

They might run her as a VP to somebody less offensive, such as Biden. If they were any smart, they would have run Zel Miller.

A national database for firearms? Just another way to create more bureaucracy and justify more harassment.

longeyes

April 4, 2006, 12:41 AM

At the current rate of cultural evolution it will be a Richardson-Villaraigosa ticket.

TonkinTwentyMil

April 4, 2006, 01:09 AM

Calling John McCain! Calling Senator John McCain!

Where do YOU stand on this (firearms database) isssue, sir?

Here's a great opportunity to show your understanding/support of the 2A, Senator.

CAnnoneer

April 4, 2006, 03:12 AM

McCain=Hillary with a penis.

beerslurpy

April 4, 2006, 03:22 AM

I call BS. McCain doesn't have anything. Look at his stance on illegal immigration.

Back to the main subject, the most common crime guns are (if I remember correctly) split between two general groups:
-about 4 or 5 types of really cheap, really crappy guns in small calibers that were probably made in 5 minutes each with a sheet metal stamper. Names like bryco, jennings, etc come to mind. Even if the gun didnt explode halfway through the first mag, the bullets are so weak it wouldnt matter.
-high quality guns that were obviously surplus police firearms such as 38 caliber S&W revolvers and 9mm Glocks. In a few years we should start to see the used 40 S&W Glocks showing up in crime statistics as today's cops start to replace their old guns.

No gun banner has ever suggested either:
-a way to stop criminals from setting up gun factories in warehouses and cranking out cheap disposable pistols (it isnt possible anymore than permanently stopping weed or meth or booze is)
-stopping police from selling their used pistols onto the secondary market every couple of years (it isnt politically popular to stop the police gravy train. However, it is funny when NJ politicians try to sue Glock because a pistol they sold to NJ police was resold to a pawn shop and then to a criminal. Then again, NJ police are a criminally suspect class, so Glock was clearly negligent in selling them pistols).

progunner1957

April 4, 2006, 12:51 PM

Remember this when you go to vote in 2008...

SHH! HILL TAKES AIM AT GUNS
By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent

April 3, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has quietly stepped up her fight for tighter gun control by signing on to a new push to make public a national database of weapons used in crimes and illegal sales.

Her résumé on gun control, a pet issue among the Democratic Party's liberal base, includes calls for a ban on assault weapons and so-called "cop killer" armor-piercing ammo - yet she hasn't personally taken a lead role in any gun legislation in this Congress.

Her silent shuffle to the left on the lightning-rod issue is sure to rankle the powerful National Rifle Association and gun-loving heartland voters who will decide the 2008 White House race.

But Clinton was so eager to have her name attached to the bill that she called Sen. Bob Menendez out of the blue to co-sponsor it, the rookie New Jersey Democrat told The Post.

She signed on to the bill last week, immediately after Menendez formally filed it, but never touted her support in a press release. So far, Clinton and fellow New York Dem Chuck Schumer are the sole Senate co-sponsors.

The NRA, gun manufacturers and their congressional allies say critics only want the data so they can sue gunmakers.

The NRA's massive political machine is poised to pound on Clinton in gun-obsessed battleground states during a likely 2008 White House race - an onslaught she may have a tough time countering.

SolaScriptura139

April 4, 2006, 12:54 PM

She'll never get my vote, and I don't think with the way she's doing things, that she'll ever have a chance on getting elected.

Bartholomew Roberts

April 4, 2006, 01:49 PM

Probably a smart move on her part politically, it isn't like gun owners were going to trust her with anything anyway.

Erebus

April 4, 2006, 01:49 PM

Intresting terminology used by the article writer....

The NRA's massive political machine is poised to pound on Clinton in gun-obsessed battleground states during a likely 2008 White House race - an onslaught she may have a tough time countering.

foghornl

April 4, 2006, 01:52 PM

I knew that The Slickster was/is hhmmmm...well, "a weasel" long before he became Guv of Arkansas, and waaaay long before he was The Prez...back in the late '70's, when he was Atty Gen of AR.

There is NO WAY I will ever vote for The Klintoons to return the White House...

Not even under threat of "Vince Foster-ing"

Manedwolf

April 4, 2006, 02:01 PM

-a way to stop criminals from setting up gun factories in warehouses and cranking out cheap disposable pistols (it isnt possible anymore than permanently stopping weed or meth or booze is)

With computer-controlled machining getting cheaper and cheaper, that's going to be even easier in the future. Any warehouse, any basement, any boat could be a cheap-gun factory. Literally, it's a matter of letting computer-controlled routers turn blocks of aluminum or steel into machined parts while you watch. Aluminum can be melted down from scrap cans, whatever, and cast into blank blocks.

Some of the old "tube reciever" machine guns probably would not be that hard to copy.

And "gun control" affecting only major manufacturers selling to legal buyers does nothing to stop that.

Art Eatman

April 4, 2006, 02:18 PM

Any co-signers on Sen Clinton's bill? Has the bill been sent to sub-committee?

Is there any companion bill introduced in the House?

Art

Manedwolf

April 4, 2006, 02:24 PM

Any co-signers on Sen Clinton's bill? Has the bill been sent to sub-committee?

I'm hoping Russ Feingold will torpedo it within the party as a stupid idea.

After his more recent statements that the assault weapons ban was "symbolic" and ineffective in preventing crime, (he voted against renewing it) and gave people the impression that the goverment wanted to take away their guns, I have a higher opinion of him.

If the "armor piercing" idiocy goes through, someone needs to do a PR event with an old, old Tokarev TT or something, put some holes through a Type II, and ask if they plan to ban ANTIQUE guns that date back to WWII...as a way of making it look very stupid and silly. True armor-piercing anything like tungsten core is ALREADY illegal.

Headless Thompson Gunner

April 4, 2006, 02:53 PM

eh, nevermind...

garyk/nm

April 4, 2006, 05:46 PM

They might run her as a VP to somebody less offensive,
Now who would be dumb enough to let her run as their VP? That would be like putting a contract out on yourself.

At the current rate of cultural evolution it will be a Richardson-Villaraigosa ticket.
You really need to use smilies when you say something like that!

mbs357

April 4, 2006, 05:48 PM

Rodham is a silly name...

[/irrelevance]

Clean97GTI

April 4, 2006, 06:10 PM

I would almost like to see Clinton make it into the White House.
It would give us another 4 years of ineffective, out-of-touch leadership that will enable third parties to make a push for power.

Get the people angry and give them a good leader. Now if we could avoid another candidate like Badnarik we'd be doing well.

ArmedBear

April 4, 2006, 06:10 PM

There's one way she could win. The same way her husband-of-convenience did: with a plurality vote.

I think I'm going to ditch my third-party nonsense for a while. It's hard to imagine a Republican so bad that it would be worth getting Hillary as President just to make a lame statement.

On the other hand I'm sure that, before he goes to bed every night, John McCain prays that Hillary runs.

ArmedBear

April 4, 2006, 06:12 PM

Now if we could avoid another candidate like Badnarik

It's not about avoiding Badnarik. It's about finding a good candidate who can get at least 40% of the popular vote.

Think we can do that in the next couple years? Yeah, right.

We Libertarians need to be careful not to become like the Democrats currently are: willing to sacrifice the long- and short-term good of the US to score a political point. If that's our attitude, we do not deserve to win.

Clean97GTI

April 4, 2006, 06:16 PM

ArmedBear,

abandoning your third party "nonsense" guarantees that third parties will never have the chance at actually gaining power.
This board had the same argument last election. There were those who voted Republican simply to keep Kerry out of office. While its your vote and you must do with it as you please, consider that vote for the lesser of two evils, is still a vote for evil.

The enemy of your enemy is NOT your friend.

Clean97GTI

April 4, 2006, 06:18 PM

it won't happen in the next 2 years and I doubt it will happen with the two parties controlling the elections.

I think we're going to have to get our own RINO into power in order to make room for libertarian ideas.

bg

April 4, 2006, 06:18 PM

You might be surprised. John Edwards did allright for
himself last election. Didn't win, but did get a lot of
votes. With HRC running as VP and him for the big
chair, the Dems just may pull it off. Won't be
with my vote, but it's only one nay..:uhoh:

ArmedBear

April 4, 2006, 06:26 PM

The enemy of your enemy is... well, the enemy of your enemy. And that's good enough for me when that's the choice before me.

"When I was a child I spoke as a child I understood as a child I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things." I Cor. xiii. 11.

And I'm not even religious. Maybe that's why I'm willing to take the best I can realistically get at the time instead of a bumper sticker that says, "Don't blame me. I vote Libertarian!" which will look great on my car while my house is searched for firearms and ammunition. No thanks.

I'm about done with this whole ideological purity thing. Alliances that win are more important than egos that lose.

ArmedBear

April 4, 2006, 06:27 PM

I think we're going to have to get our own RINO into power in order to make room for libertarian ideas.

Now THAT'S a lot more realistic.

Clean97GTI

April 4, 2006, 06:35 PM

Alliances that win are nice as long as you are among the winners. So far, the only alliance I see consistently winning is the one that keeps the halls of government stocked with the letter D & R. They do what they must to maintain power and control. Why wasn't Badnarik (as bats**t crazy as he sounded) allowed to debate with the other candidates?

Civil rights haven't exactly been doing much in the way of gaining lost ground and most recently, we have El Presidente to thank for that one.

ArmedBear

April 4, 2006, 06:45 PM

I don't care what letter is after someone's name. I care how he/she votes in Congress.

Parties get people elected. That's what they do. Platforms can change.

Clean97GTI

April 4, 2006, 07:18 PM

and if that person doesn't follow along with the party closely enough, how long do you think they'll last in congress? Elections would come up and they would be out on their rear.

Parties get people elected, but only when that person represents the party. I care that the parties have managed to all but shut the door behind them. Neither party wants any type of voting or election reform. They've got the power and they don't want to give it up.
Political parties are about power and nothing more.

ArmedBear

April 4, 2006, 07:24 PM

Big mistake, GTI.

Republicans don't care so much that someone "represents the party" as long as he/she WINS.

You're mistaking mainstream parties, which are organizations that exist to get as many of their people elected as possible, for third parties, which exist to advance specific ideologies.

There is no "big tent" in thirdpartyland. There is in the world of D's and R's.

Don't mistake the recent rise of extreme partisanship for the rise of a highly specific ideology. Partisanship waxes and wanes.

Clean97GTI

April 4, 2006, 08:32 PM

I don't see how its a mistake.

A republican that gets elected was backed by a party because they represent that party. Ideally, they are supposed to represent the people and parties are unneccesary, but it doesn't work like that anymore. Start going against your party and you'll find yourself losing the next election.

I believe I nailed it on the head when I said large parties are all about power. The more people you put in power, the more powerful your party becomes. You'll notice we don't say that the centrists or the liberals control congress. We say the Republicans or the Democrats control congress. You group similar ideas together in one camp and viola, its party time. The stronger you grow (by gaining votes) the more influence you possess.

We've gotten to a point where two parties encompass (or so they would lead you to believe) the entire populace. Now, this gives an illusion of choice when actually, they offer up moderate, fence riding candidates in order to maintain their positions of power.

ArmedBear

April 4, 2006, 08:48 PM

Start going against your party and you'll find yourself losing the next election.

It seems that you and I disagree on the facts. It's hard to reconcile a difference of opinion when your reality and mine are different.

My reality includes Arlen Specter, John McCain, and Patrick Leahey, as well as Ron Paul and Michael Crapo, on the Republican side, at least. Their "tent" is bigger; they are in the majority and the Democrats have become a minority-opposition party. Show me someone who was winning elections but who was tossed out of a major party for "going against it."

If you're winning elections and are willing to put an R or D by your name, there's a VERY high chance the party will be happy to include you. And THAT is why it is more important to get good candidates before the electorate than it is to fight against the party system.

Of COURSE the parties are about consolidating power under their own banners. But that contradicts your assertion that they are about ideology. Of COURSE they put up inoffensive, relatively worthless candidates when they have no one who would really gin up some positive votes.

If the Libertarians became a major party, we probably wouldn't like us much, either.

Headless Thompson Gunner

April 4, 2006, 09:31 PM

abandoning your third party "nonsense" guarantees that third parties will never have the chance at actually gaining power.
Third parties will never gain power either way. Vote third party if it helps you sleep at night, but don't delude yourself about any third party candidate being able to win any meaningful national election. It ain't gonna happen.

As for Hillary, she's spent the last 5 years carefully positioning herself for a run at the white house. She's taken a number of very public, very moderate positions recently. She'll use them as "proof" she's a moderate, and not the rabid socialist she really is.

But she also has to look after her core base of luny leftists and commies. They have to be reminded from time to time that she's still their girl. This current gun control gambit is merely quiet, subtle way of reassuring her base that she's still herself.

I doubt that she actually cares one way or the other about this particular bit of law. I think she's just using it to play politics. If nothing else, the Clintons are masterful politicians.

alan

April 5, 2006, 07:47 PM

Headless Thompson Gunner offered the following:

As for Hillary, she's spent the last 5 years carefully positioning herself for a run at the white house. She's taken a number of very public, very moderate positions recently. She'll use them as "proof" she's a moderate, and not the rabid socialist she really is.

But she also has to look after her core base of luny leftists and commies. They have to be reminded from time to time that she's still their girl. This current gun control gambit is merely quiet, subtle way of reassuring her base that she's still herself.

I doubt that she actually cares one way or the other about this particular bit of law. I think she's just using it to play politics. If nothing else, the Clintons are masterful politicians.
__________________

I find the last paragraph particularly interesting, and might I note the following, regarding "movers and shakers" (big name people) in both the anti gun movement and the anti abortion or pro life movement.

I submit that they are most interested in obtaining personal power, that is the power to tell you and yours what to do, what not to do, and when they might do whatever it is that happens, at the moment, to be permitted. I really do not believe that they care overly much about the "masthead issue", whatever it might happen to be, for it is power that they seek. Hillary Clinton is no different in this respect.